Time of Fury spans the whole war in Europe and gives players the opportunity to control all types of units, ground, air and naval. Not only that, each player will be able to pick a single country or selection of countries and fight his way against either the AI or in multiplayer in hotseat or Play by E-Mail. This innovative multiplayer feature will give player the chance to fight bigger scenarios against many opponents, giving the game a strategic angle that has no equal in the market. The game uses Slitherine’s revolutionary PBEM++ server system.
ORIGINAL: bairdlander
The map,counter's and use of corps make ToF a lot like Avalon Hill Third Reich boardgame.WitE has a lot more detail and flexability and it just covers east front.
I'm not sure about flexibility in WiTE, your'e on a long one-way trip to Berlin, the variation is in what date the Soviets get there, at least ToW can change the plot. [:)]
This game is indeed wildly and fantastically flexible. Anything can happen. Historicity is not its strong suit. It's fun, but it's not WW2.
All games have to entertain if they are to succeed and it is an overstatement to say that anything can happen in TOF, but it has to be an advantage in re-play, if each game has the possibility of a different, but reasonably plausible, outcome.
Yeh, I know, what's reasonable and what's plausible, but you get the idea. [:)]
"In politics stupidity is not a handicap" - Napoleon
“A people which is able to say everything becomes able to do everything” - Napoleon
“Among those who dislike oppression are many who like to oppress" - Napoleon
Just like you can't compare say SPI's World War II to SPI's War in the East. Two different types of games. One is strategic in scope and the other is operational in scope. You have to understand the 'intent' or scope of the game. TOF is strategic in scope and generally follows a somewhat realistic historical back drop, although this can dramatically change within a few turns into something that is not WW2 for example. In WitE, you won't see this happen since it's based solely on historical events.
For another comparison, in TOF and SPI's WW2, or AH's Third Reich (I would actually rate this game more like a combo of AH's Advanced Third Reich meets ADG's Down in Flames) you are the 'leader' of a country. In WitE (or SPI's War in the East or even GDW's Fire in the East/Scorched Earth) you are not the 'leader' but instead assume the role of say OKH. What that boils down to is in the role of the 'leader' you can determine weather or not to launch a Sea Lion type of operation or when to strike at France or Russia as the German 'leader'. In games that are operational in scope you don't have that luxury. The 'leader' has taken away your 'political' abilities and your job is to 'run' the Army High Command and all the various Armies, Corps and Divisions there in.
So you can't really compare this TOF against that WITE it does not make sense.
You can compare TOF to say Strategic Command WWII Global Conflict however. Or to say HOI.
Beta Tester for: War in the East 1 & 2, WarPlan & WarPlan Pacific, Valor & Victory, Flashpoint Campaigns: Sudden Storm, Computer War In Europe 2 SPWW2 & SPMBT scenario creator Tester for WDS games
I'll chime in just to agree. I've played both (have spent more time with WITE than TOF) and they are completely different games.
At this moment TOF is not really WW2 and it's much more abstract than WITE. WITE is also not really Russian Front imo because there are still game balance issues or bugs that make the later years play out in a very funny way. They are working on this as probably TOF is working on balancing out its game and fixing bugs. But probably WITE is farther along in this process since it's been out a year.
TOF is fun to play but has some annoying bugs and game design issues that may be fixed given a few more months. TOF also is very hard to understand from a player perspective. By this I mean you won't know what is happening sometimes. The game mechanics seem shrouded in mystery and there is not very good documentation about the game. By this I don't mean fog of war, I mean just inability of the player to understand how to do things or why things are happening - which is different than fog of war.
WITE dev team went to great lengths to very carefully explain to players everything happening in the game and how it happens. However it still has FOW so while playing the game obviously you can't see everything your opponent is doing.
TOF has naval while WITE does not. TOF naval is pretty fiddly to play since you have to go into a separate window when you click on each sea zone before you can move any ships in that SZ. Also you have to click on individual CV's for example to use them. So if you have 3 task forces in a SZ and one has a CV in it, you have to click on the SZ. Then click on the right TF in the window that opens. Then click on the CV in that TF, then click on the Recon button then click on the SZ where you want to recon. Then click on your SZ again. Then click on the TF with the CV. Then click on the CV in that TF. Then click on the Air Strike button then click on the SZ where you want to air strike. Then click on a box to close the results of the air strike. All of this just to launch a recon and an air strike from your CV TF. Lots of clicking and it becomes very tiresome.
Overall both are fun, but TOF is probably more frustrating to play right now. WITE is a very "heavy" game though and will take tons of time to play - so it depends on your preference. If you like detail, realism, and the ability to really get into the details of what's going on and understand everything happening - WITE is the right game. If you like a higher level game, a simpler game, the ability to control a navy and make political decisions (only against AI you can't make them in PBEM) then TOF is the right choice probably.
